AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES...on the wrong side of everything!

saintsfanbrian wrote:

Can anyone show me where a LEGALLY owned machine gun has been used to kill some one OTHER THAN THE REFRENCE TO THE POLICE OFFICER THAT KILLED THE INFORMANT?

Can anyone show me why an AK47 or an M16 is a bad weapon to own?

This is just a wild guess, but maybe this has something to do with the fact that requirements to be able to buy a machine gun are so high. Are you honestly saying that if lower the requirements and let anyone that wants buy machine guns, this wouldn't create problems.

You are argueing that regular citizens should be able to buy machine guns that are used to kill many many people at ones? And somehow you don't think that they would be used in drive by shootings and such?

What about grenade launchers, should ordinary people be able to buy those too?

What about bazookas?

What about portable rocket launchers?

What about antiaircraft weapons? portable surface to air missle launchers?

Where do you draw the line between a gun that can reasonably be used to protect someone from thieves etc and a gun that's only useful in massacaring a large crowd of people, taking out tanks, helicopters, airplanes etc?

Do you have any idea what people like the highway shooter or the DC sniper could have done if they could've legally purchased machine guns?

Saints, on this issue, you're wrong, plain and simple. People shouldn't be free to buy machine guns without atleast passing the few requirement already in place to do so.

AND I AM STILL WAITING FOR EVEN ONE PERSON ON HERE TO POINT TO HOW MY PROPOSAL (highlighted in the last post of the previous page) is IS A BAD IDEA. Please explain to me why republicans continue to throw out such perfectly reasonable proposals that would make law enforcement so much easier and help protect us from terrorists though they in no way hinder a person's right to own a gun?

Keep in mind that these are the same hypocrits that somehow see no problem in the government being able to detain people indefinately without a warrant, presenting any evidence, holding a trial, or at the very least telling the person being detained for years on end why they've been locked up (as the patriot acts allow us to do).

0 Replies

I carried the M-14 + Remmington 12 guage and S & W model 9 sidearm. fortunately i missed the opportunity to rely on the M-16 and I am alive today.
and yes saintsfanbrian I have no objection to your owning the M-16 or Chevy Vega/Ford Pinto or Yugo if you be so inclined. good taste is timeless they say.

0 Replies

In both Iraq and Somolia, I carried a beretta 9mm pistol, but was not actually issued ammunition. The Engineers who built the camps were also not issued ammo for their M-16s, M-60s, Saws, and .50 cals, although they continued to carry the first, and set up defensive positions for the latter. This was because we were "non-combatants." Army logic strikes again. Confused

0 Replies

My understanding is that the M-16 is a fairly said piece of equipment, too small caliber and with a tendency to jam. Never have seen one though, much less shot one.

They are developing the M-4 to replace the M-16.

http://www.specwarnet.com/kit/m4.htm

0 Replies

As one who believes that law abiding citizens should be able to own as many guns and whatever kinds of guns they want whether the purpose be for hunting, hanging on the wall, self defense, or any other legal use, I do not have a problem with writing down and keeping a list of those who buy guns. I think anyone buying a gun should have verifiable I.D. and proof of citizenship via a driver's license, social security card or whatever.

I don't have a problem with licensing certain gun owners (i.e. AK47 owners or concealed carry) after they complete a safety course or whatever so long as law abiding citizens are not prohibited from taking the course whenver and wherever they want. The constitution allows me to own and keep firearms. It does not allow me to endanger other law abiding citizens or disturb the peace with them.

I think people who are not eligible by law to purchase a gun should have this so noted on their verifiable I.D., driver's license or whatever, and that alone should make background checks unnecessary. (Or maybe just mark the ID/Driver's license of those who are eligible. Either way it lets reputable gun dealers deny guns to those who are not allowed to have. them.)

Criminals will continue to get their guns through the black market and other illegal channels. But I just wish we would focus on getting the guns away from these instead of worrying so much about peaceful, law abiding citizens.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

My understanding is that the M-16 is a fairly said piece of equipment, too small caliber and with a tendency to jam. Never have seen one though, much less shot one.

They are developing the M-4 to replace the M-16.

http://www.specwarnet.com/kit/m4.htm

It would make an adequate club.
The Berreta would have been a nice piece of equipment, had the military not introduced all sorts of modifications that made it an easily jammed/easily broken pos.

0 Replies

here in colorado (as with other states of the southwest any citizen may carry any legal firearm so long as it is not concealed (with some city exceptions) concealed carry permits vary by county with regulations determined by each county sheriff.

0 Replies

Here - Here Fox- Come to my town - Shoot our guns, and when its all said and done (if you are old enough) we will buy a six pack and enjoy.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

As one who believes that law abiding citizens should be able to own as many guns and whatever kinds of guns they want whether the purpose be for hunting, hanging on the wall, self defense, or any other legal use, I do not have a problem with writing down and keeping a list of those who buy guns. I think anyone buying a gun should have verifiable I.D. and proof of citizenship via a driver's license, social security card or whatever.

I don't have a problem with licensing certain gun owners (i.e. AK47 owners or concealed carry) after they complete a safety course or whatever so long as law abiding citizens are not prohibited from taking the course whenver and wherever they want. The constitution allows me to own and keep firearms. It does not allow me to endanger other law abiding citizens or disturb the peace with them.

I think people who are not eligible by law to purchase a gun should have this so noted on their verifiable I.D., driver's license or whatever, and that alone should make background checks unnecessary. (Or maybe just mark the ID/Driver's license of those who are eligible. Either way it lets reputable gun dealers deny guns to those who are not allowed to have. them.)

Criminals will continue to get their guns through the black market and other illegal channels. But I just wish we would focus on getting the guns away from these instead of worrying so much about peaceful, law abiding citizens.

Foxfyre, by making that statement you are speaking in favor of many nearly identical policies that republicans and the NRA repeatedly blocked from passing.

I agree with you 100%. It's the loonies that make up the NRA (like the ones that think anyone should be able to buy a machine gun if they wanted to without having to take a course),

the ones that think that someone shouldn't even have to present an ID in order to buy a gun (they don't in gun shows in Colorado and other places and the bill to make them was blocked by republicans and the NRA),

the ones that oppose atleast making sure that a quickily and reliably retrievable record of guns is avialable somewhere even if it can only be accessed to check on someone who's already a suspect or to check on a gun that's already been used in a crime.

These are the people I fail to understand.

If you're one of the people that agree with the NRA's stance on the issues above. I challenge you to defend your view. Failure to do so will be seen as admissal by conservatives that the NRA doesn't make sense and doesn't have the best interests of the nation in mind.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

If you're one of the people that agree with the NRA's stance on the issues above. I challenge you to defend your view. Failure to do so will be seen as admissal by conservatives that the NRA doesn't make sense and doesn't have the best interests of the nation in mind.

LOL! IF nobody argues with me, I win. And if you do, you're wrong! :wink:

0 Replies

Nope, if no one can give a single arguement as to why the NRA and the republicans aren't wrong on these issues, then I win.

Very Happy

I'm still waiting.

And I seem to be winning.

0 Replies

Centroles, shouldn't you be studying? :wink:

0 Replies

Nope, skipped all my classes today to go out golfing with friends Very Happy

Just got back. Will be going to columbus later tonight.

There's no point in studying if I can't get a sold 5 hrs in at a time.

Besides there's nothing like a good hardy debate to stimulate the mind. Especially a debate where I'm outnumbered, outgunned but know the opposition doesn't have a leg to stand on.

0 Replies

Centroles - you have just called me a looney. I am a life member of the NRA and take offense to that statement. [goute]I agree with you 100%. It's the loonies that make up the NRA (like the ones that think anyone should be able to buy a machine gun if they wanted to without having to take a course)[/quote]

I don't think anyone that was going to purchase a machine gun (I can own them by the way I just have to get a license) would be so rash as to think they don't need some type of training on the weapon. Not too many legal gun owners have absolutely no training. Even if it is just a father (mother) teaching his son (daughter.) There is training involved. I plan on teaching my daughter and any other kids that I might have. And if you want to send your kids over - I will teach them too. Safety First!

0 Replies

Yes I'm certain that every single person out there in the US that would buy a machine gun would be responsible with it.

There isn't a single irresponsible person out there and thus everyone should be allowed to buy whatever guns they want.

All those irresponsible people I hear about on the news, the dc snipers, the highway shooter, the columbine kids, the teens that do drive by shootings on a regular basis, these are all just figments of my imagination.

0 Replies

Centroles, I voted Republican in the last several elections and I am a member of the NRA. Neverthless, I make up my own mind about things. The NRA has been the unflinching champion of the second amendment and have probably done more to contribute to gun safety than any other entity. I do not agree with them on every point but, unlike some of you, I do not have to defend every point made by anybody or anything in order to appreciate and support somebody or something.

(Not that you care, but I feel the same way about the GOP)

0 Replies

Well then, the next time congress introduces a piece of legislation advocating the very same proposals that you stated that you backed, I would very much appreciate it if you could write a letter to the NRA asking them to not lobby against the proposal and get it blocked like the usually do.

I think it would do a world of good if more members of the NRA honestly considered the merits of certain proposals instead of instinctively opposing anything that has anything to do with guns.

0 Replies

One of the NRA board of directors members is none other than my crazy uncle Ted "Leroy" Nugent. Never hurts to have a famous face, especially an outspoken one.

0 Replies

Saints and the others here, I have nothing against owning a gun. I've under supervision shot a shotgun, a rifle and various pistols. I am even considering purchasing a license and recieving training after starting medical school.

All I am argueing is that there is a lot of merit to many of the gun legislation that congress proposes. The NRA and republicans by instinctively opposing any resolution that has anything to do with guns, instead of considering the merits of it, are making this country less safe. They are giving a bad name to gun owners everywhere by doing so.

I've already shown you why many of the laws being proposed wouldn't restrict gun owners rights but would make this country safer. And all of you have failed to contradict any of my assertions. So please, just don't go along with the NRA on everything. Consider the legislation on it's own merits and if you agree with it, let the NRA know your perspective. They would certainly appreciate input from loyal members. Perhaps they as an organization would start to think more reasonably as well.

If we actually got some of these laws passed, they wouldn't restrict gun owners rights in any way. But they would make it harder for criminals to get guns and easier for law enforcement to find criminals. Gun crimes would go down as a result. And then many of these anti gun groups would go away too. There wouldn't even be a need for an NRA.

0 Replies

Why would you need an AK-47? If a normal person bought it, the only reason would be for killing sprees. I could defend myself just fine with a 9mm. No one needs an Ak-47 unless you truly are just using as a "sport".

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES...on the wrong side of everything!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know